No millionaires in the backcountry

Dear Editors,

Do we want Telluride millionaires monopolizing our backcountry?

Hell no! Thank you for alerting/reminding the public about Telluride Helitrax trying to take over the winter backcountry around Silverton. For those of you who don’t know the issue, please refer to the fed website: www.fs.fed.us/r2/sanjuan/projects/projects.shtml.

This is a huge issue, one that has far-reaching impacts, despite what the owner of Helitrax wants you to believe. Helitrax wants to jettison rich skiers onto more than 37,000 acres of terrain with 16 different landing areas on BLM lands surrounding Silverton, thereby increasing their skier days to 600 for 10 years. The owner claims no one in Telluride is against their plans. Of course not, because all the noise and chaos of their helicopters won’t be in their county. Instead, he wants to trash the backcountry around Silverton where San Juan County gets zero economic benefit from it, not even tax dollars. And if they get this special-use permit, it may not be so difficult to extend their season to dropping off people in the summer. Unbelievable!

This is a travesty, and it disgusts me. I am so tired of people from out of town making money by exploiting every last hidden pocket in the backcountry. Why do we need helicopters servicing skiers to terrain that is already accessible from roads? The 550 corridor and surrounding roads are not exactly a remote destination like in Alaska.

If you are a backcountry snowshoer, skier or boarder who has enjoyed the silence and/or earning your turns in the mountains around Silverton, please write a letter expressing your opinion. There are three options: Alternative A, which would not allow Helitrax to continue to operate on BLM lands in San Juan County; Alternate B, which gives Helitrax everything they want; and Alternative C, which scales down the permit to five

years with half the landing sites and half the skier days (300). Please ask the BLM to consider either Alternate A or C in your letter. Also worth stating is the safety of Helitrax dropping bombs on runs where winter users are below them skiing down or hiking up, hidden in the trees. The deadline is Dec.3, 2007. Of course, I’m opting for Alt. A. Keep the millionaire skiers in San

Miguel County. Let them exploit their own backcountry and scare away all the wildlife. Send letters to: Richard Speegle, project manager, San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301. Or by e-mail to: richard_speegle@blm.gov.

– Amy Grogan, via e-mail

Homegrown carbon loading

Dear Editors,

It seems that Durango is chock-full of people and organizations that really care about where they live. For the most part, it is not the economy or cost of living that keeps people here, but the place itself. So with this train of thought, I was a little perplexed reading the latestTelegraph, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

In the Nov. 8 issue, I noticed multiple articles about current “do-gooders” combating the ever-present and ever-pressing battle on environmental degradation and global warming. I even started to get all warm and fuzzy inside reading about so much collective and proactive contributions, projects and promises being made and reported in the articles. And then I read a little blurb, a difficult contradiction of sorts that keeps popping up – the D&SNGRR train and not an article about reducing emissions, but investing in “first-class service!”

So, here I am reading about how Fort Lewis College is beginning to lay out new innovative plans and procedures to curb carbon emissions and leave more of a neutral footprint and start to wonder what is our local train really doing to curb its mark on our environment? I see it working on “first-class service,” but what is being done about the excessive amount of coal being burned, the carbon emissions, and coal waste being dumped in Silverton, near our upper watershed? I remember in the summer D&SNGRR management was deciding to use wood chips for nightly burning and heating of the engine, but are they still doing that and have they taken another itty-bitty step beyond that?

Further on, I read about the exhibit “Question of Power,” a photography exhibit questioning the idea of “power as authority” and “power as energy source,” and I see a direct correlation of question posed to our local train debate, especially seeing how the show is focusing on the Diné people in opposition to the proposed coal-burning power plant, Desert Rock, which is also another heated debate in our back yard. So maybe comparing the train to a power plant is way off, yet isn’t it still the same problem and process of burning coal and dumping waste, overall contributing to global warming? Especially, when speaking about purpose vs. effect? Maybe I am just surprised that City Council, community members and/or local organizations are not drawing more attention to this seemingly harmless, grossly overlooked issue. Why is the community not demanding more actions be taken for D&SNGRR to implement more carbon neutrality? In a local, homegrown business of historical allure, just like the town, why not work together to preserve the reason why people live and visit here?

And, one more thing, maybe the ridership would be greater if passengers did not have to inhale mercury-laden coal smoke, and they knew that rather than contributing to waste and environmental degradation, they were supporting a local, more environmentally friendly business. I think D&SNGRR can do better than just incorporate first-class service and hike prices to get more profit! Are you just catering to rich tourists, D$SNGRR?

– Elsa Jagniecki, a ranting local who likes fresh air

Alternatives to the ark of animals

To the Editors, As we approach another holiday, many will be solicited to donate funds to help Third World citizens. The appeal will come in glossy, colorful brochures of innocent children holding innocent animals – a lamb, a kid, a baby rabbit, a goat with a Santa hat. Many charitable groups across the globe solicit funds to promote the practice of animal distribution. Among them are Oxfam, Send a Cow, Christian Aid and the most widely known and high-profile organization, Heifer Project International, which in the past year solicited $75 million from worldwide donors. While the intent is genuine and compassionate in nature, there is another side to distributing farm animals to the Third World. Maneka Ghandi, the Indian minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, wrote in the December 2006 issue ofThe Pioneer, an Indian news journal: “Nothing irritates me more than the charities abroad that collect money and purport to give it to women or children or for animals in Asia or Africa … According to environmentalists, it is madness to send goats, cows and chickens to areas where they will add to the problems of drought and desertification. All farmed animals require proper nourishment, large quantities of water, shelter from extremes, and veterinary care. Such resources are in critically short supply in much of Africa and Asia. These programs are irresponsible and misguided. Instead of helping impoverished communities in the developing world flourish, it is spreading disease, damaging the environment and wiping out vital water supplies.”

The promotion of animal agriculture in the third world has several untoward effects on the so-called beneficiaries. The majority of Africans are lactose intolerant. The introduction of dairy products into some cultures creates a life of discomfort and distress. The association between an animal-product diet and cardiovascular disease is well established with links between meat ingestion and cancer an ongoing area of investigation. The unleashing of mechanisms for the etiologies of diseases that plague the Western world onto unsuspecting Third World cultures seems irresponsible. The consequences to the planet of the expansion of animal agriculture cannot be ignored. In a Dec. 27, 2006, editorial from the New York Times, “Meat and the Planet,” a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” is summarized. Key points include current use of 30 percent of the planet’s land for grazing and livestock feed production. Livestock consume more food than they yield, compete with humans for water, and destroy terrain such as the rain forests. The spew of methane gas produced by farm animals, a very inconvenient fact for carnivores, conveniently omitted from Mr. Gore’s film about global warming, has not escaped the attention of many environmentalists. The UN FAO claims that 18 percent of the global warming effect, more than transportation’s contribution, is the result of bovine digestion and nitrogen emissions. So what are generous, compassionate and nurturing4citizens of the world to do? There are alternatives to providing an “ark of animals,” Heifer International’s marketing jingle. Why not instead a send cornucopia of trees, seeds and water? Helping the hungry feed themselves through gifts that are healthier for humans, more culturally sensitive, more economically sound, and greener for the planet can be done through: Trees for Life, treesforlife.org; Fruit Tree Planting Foundation, ftpf.org; Sustainable Harvest International, sustainableharvest.org; Animal Aid, animalaid.org.uk; Women’s Bean Project, womensbeanproject.org; Food Not bombs, foodnotbombs.net; Plenty International, plenty.org; Globalgiving.com.

– Joyce Fontana, Durango

In search of sugar and spice

Dear Editors,

OK, you know who you are ... There are tons of y’all out there, and y’all know you are guilty, so get ready to admit it.

Anyways, I took a certain someone out to Red Lobster and spent a hundred bucks. Now I make 7 bucks an hour, so I obviously saved up for a while in order to afford this. Then, I bought you fine wine at Red Snapper. Later, I bought you chocolate from the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory and you snarfed it in less than an hour. I know, because I called and you told me you did. Then, I bought you a couple bottles of your favorite, Boone’s Apple Wine, and took you out for a romantic night. I even dressed up and put on the dog. And then you refused to put out and said you were “still kind of in love with your boyfriend.” Now I know you have been sleeping around and doodling any guy who’ll give you the time of day. So, the fact of the matter is, you accepted all kinds of gifts and attention, and then refused to put out. This is patently wrong. To add insult to injury, you insulted my home when I took you back for a little hoochie-koo on the sofa – complaining about how my apartment smells! That’s what cats do. It ain’t supposed to smell like roses – that’s why they call it “cat pee.”

Talking smack about every little thing. My car’s too old. My myspace friends all look like sluts. And so on. You are spoiled rotten. Made me wait for you at the Farmington mall while you browsed in all kinds of stores. Refused to wait for me to browse at the Sword and blade shoppe. Well, lemme tell you what, Miss Cutie Patootie, my daddy owns this-and-that. The hell with you. Your daddy pays for every damned thing here. Just cuz your car is two years old and mine’s 20 don’t mean nothin. And you talk smack about your roommates not showerin’ enough when I smelt your BO once or twice. So stop actin’ so high-falutin. And next time a guy takes you out to get drunk, it means you’re supposed to give him a little sugar-n-spice.

– Lee Van Quif, via e-mail